Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ANITA SUMANTH, J.
M/s.Mondelez India Foods Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Authorised Signatory, E.N. Prabakaran Chennai – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Through its Secretary Department of Revenue, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P. Nos. 1305, 1309, 1311, 1314 & 1318 of 2020 & W.M.P. Nos. 1566, 1570, 1571, 1573 & 1575 of 2020
Decided On : 09-03-2023
Rectification of Assessment - Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - Section 84 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, which deals with the power to rectify an error apparent on the face of the record. The court highlighted the non-consideration of additional submissions made by the petitioner and concluded that it constituted an error apparent on the record, thus requiring rectification. The impugned orders were set aside, and the writ petitions were allowed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling confectionery candy products, sought rectification of assessment under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for the periods 2011 – 12 to 2015 – 2016. The assessments had been framed bringing the entirety of the turnover at an enhanced rate of tax as claimed by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the non-consideration of the additional submissions made by the petitioner constituted an error apparent on the record, requiring rectification under Section 84 of the Act. The impugned orders were set aside, and the writ petitions were allowed.
Issues: The issues revolved around the differential rate of taxes applicable to the petitioner's products, specifically the rates applicable to the turnover from sales of TANG. The petitioner claimed that the enhanced rate should apply only to the turnover attributable to TANG, which was not considered in the original assessment proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the provisions of Section 84 of the Act, which empowers the authorities to rectify an error apparent on the face of the record. The court emphasized the non-consideration of the petitioner's additional submissions and concluded that it constituted an error requiring rectification.
Final Decision: The impugned orders were set aside, and the writ petitions were allowed. The petitioner was directed to appear before the appellate authority for a personal hearing, and orders were to be passed on the Section 84 application within a specified period.
JUDGMENT
(Prayerin W.P.No.1305 of 2020: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the impugned order bearing TNVAT AP No.65/2018 (2011-12) dated 15.11.2019 passed by respondent no.2 and quash the same, and consequently direct the respondent no.2 to consider the submissions made by the petitioner / merits of the petitioner''s case.
In W.P.No.1309 of 2020: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the impugned order bearing TNVAT AP No.61/2018 (2012-13) dated 15.11.2019 passed by respondent no.2 and quash the same, and consequently direct the respondent no.2 to consider the submissions made by the petitioner / merits of the petitioner''s case.
in W.P.No.1311 of 2020: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the impugned order bearing TNVAT AP No.62/2018 (2013-14) dated 15.11.2019 passed by respondent no.2 and quash the same, and consequently direct the respondent no.2 to consider the submissions made by the petitioner / merits of the petitioner''s case.
in W.P.No.1314 of 2020: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the impugned order bearing TNVAT AP No.63/2018 (2014-15) dated 15.11.2019 passed by) respondent no.2 and quash the same, and consequently direct the respondent no.2 to consider the submissions made by the petitioner / merits of the petitioner''s case.
in W.P.No.1318 of 2020: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the impugned order bearing TNVAT AP No.64/2018 (2015-16) dated 15.11.2019 passed by respondent no.2 and quash the same, and consequently direct the respondent no.2 to consider the submissions made by the petitioner / merits of the petitioner''s case.)
Common Order:
1. This is a common order passed in a batch of five writ petitions relating to the period 2011 – 12 to 2015 – 2016 (periods in question).
2. What is assailed is an order rejecting the request of the petitioner for rectification of assessment sought for under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (in short, ''Act''). The facts and the dates involved are common across writ petitions.
3. The petitioner is a limited company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of confectionery candy products and other proprietory products and is a dealer under the provisions of the Act. Assessments had been framed for the periods in question bringing to tax the entirety of the turnover at an enhanced rate of tax as claimed by the petitioner.
4. In the course of the original assessment proceedings, the petitioner had supplied the details of turnover and admittedly there is nothing on record to indicate that any bifurcation of the turnover between the products manufactured and sold had been furnished to the attention of the Assessing Officer. The assessments etc have been completed and the issue with which we are concerned in these writ petitions revolve around the differential rate of taxes.
5. The difference of opinion between the parties was that the petitioners claim that one of their products, TANG was existable to taxes at the rate of 4% and thereafter 5%, whereas it is the stand of the respondents that the rates applicable would be 12.5% and thereafter 14%. It is not the rate per se which is in dispute before me.
6. The Assessing Authority concluded the assessments adverse to the petitioner confirming the higher of the rates as applicable to the turnover. In doing so, the entirety of turnover of the petitioner was subject to enhanced rate of 12.5% / 14%.
7. The petitioner filed appeals before the first appellate authority. Even here, the grounds of appeal do not
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, which empowers the authorities to rectify an error apparent on the face ....
Erroneous reasoning for rejecting rectification application under TNVAT Act, 2006 based on prescribed time limit.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the best judgment method due to the petitioner's failure to respond to summons, and the provision for rectification of the order....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the continuity of business in the petitioner's hands, despite the demise of the original dealer, validated the assessment orders made in the n....
Assessment orders quashed as barred by six-year limitation under S.27 TNVAT Act from prior assessments.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the assessing officer to apply an independent mind and adhere to the principles of judicial discipline in assessment proceeding....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
